Modesty for women and men

[johnnyjones]

Essentially, yes.

But traditional values cannot delineate modesty and immodesty perfectly, which was the goal of my original inquiry. In other words, I can look to traditional values as a metric for getting a modest outfit. I may be able to look to traditional values in some cases to determine whether a garment is modest or immodest. But traditional values as they stand now cannot exhaustively determine whether garments are modest or immodest.

What if we got to the point that one could go bottomless? Would the outcry be, “that’s too much” or would it be to accept it based on individuals simply keeping their libidos in check… Actually in the US and elsewhere beaches have separate areas for topless women. Why? Is it found by some to be immodest? A delineation is made. The ordinance is saying, “some people will like this and some won’t”.
I think we have evolved to accept various states of undress, so gauging it is a matter of taste or tact, and if a Christian man or women is wise they will head the churches suggestions and act wisely.

 

[OurBeloved]

Essentially, yes.

But traditional values cannot delineate modesty and immodesty perfectly, which was the goal of my original inquiry. In other words, I can look to traditional values as a metric for getting a modest outfit. I may be able to look to traditional values in some cases to determine whether a garment is modest or immodest. But traditional values as they stand now cannot exhaustively determine whether garments are modest or immodest.

Yes, this I perfectly agree with.

I think we can then conclude our discussion by saying that we agree on the fact that, a Christian who is interested in living a modest life would be able to find the best (not perfect or fully exhaustive) option is to adhere to traditional values and standards.

 

[OurBeloved]

Catering to people’s weaknesses is hardly a cure. I should know. Just today I’ve learned how little value you have for letting your weaknesses get the better of you.

But it is what St. Paul and the Church teaches. So I cannot agree with you this point which seems to be the core of your argument.

Blessed JP2 is a theologian, not necessarily an art critic and when it comes to evaluating works that have artistic value (including fashion), one should take into account how author intent can be disregarded because their take on their own work can be more easily ruled out without any serious repercussions. There’s no basis on what the creator can stand on other than his/her tastes either. It’s not like reading a Bible or a science textbook when what has been written has more solid basis.

JPII is also a philosophical thinker. What he does is lay the rules for what is ethical or unethical in Art. This goes beyond even the Art critic in that JPII specifically determines how and what standards an Art critic should adherer to.

So I think it is better to heed his advice.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your rapid response to my questions.

Since you freely admit that traditional values will signpost us in the direction of modesty when it comes to the matter of attire, then surely they ought to play a far more major role in the contemporary Church for dertermining what is modest or immodest, seemly or unseemly? Many modern Catholics convey the impression that the moral sense of the faithful and the collective wisdom of past times is no longer relevant and can have nothing to say to us today, save perhaps to illustrate the male oppression of women.

Teaching on specific garments may not have been exhausted, but modesty and natural law, the standard of decency for women throughout the centuries, was certainly always to cover the legs, for example, and not outline or display them. This hallowed practice only changed, as did many others, for establishing modesty, with the 20th. centuries new novel notions of decency for women. Now although these godless ideas were certainly not proposed by Holy Mother Church (which cannot redefine the natural law anyway) nor by Catholic custom, many professing Catholics decided that since the Protestants were embracing New Morality with its new decency, they could do the same. That was, my dear brother, a catastrophic error of prudential judgment if there was. The superficial thinking was that if enough people are adopting the unseemly attire, then they cannot be all wrong and few ‘prissy Puritan minded Catholics’ right. If the majority do it then it is right, was the motto of these putative Catholics, as if the societal norms dictated right and wrong, and not the natural law anymore. It was St. Augustine who once said, “wrong is wrong whether everone is doing it and right is right whether no one is doing it”. As Catholics we do not base our morality or modesty on the stutus quo, but on God and the natural law (neither of which are subject to change).

Given this sad and worldly trend among comtemporary Catholics, I think that we are perfectly entitled to ask just how equipped are many Catholic people today to be able to seriously ascertain whether a garment is modest or immodest. For that matter, it must be asked, given their want of spiritual formation, whether they even understand the requirements of Christian modesty at all. The multiple modesty threads on these boards would suggest, decidedly no.

Unfortunately and to their shame they have bought just too much into the prevailing decadent Western culture, which has rendered their consciences radically defective and thus their decision making upon such matters is necessarily impaired and unreliable. How therefore can it be depended upon for guidance? As I have stated,* in passim*, correct prudential judgments respecting clothing choices will only be made by those with a well-formed conscience and I make no apology for repeating that truth numerous times.

The Church is not required to be specific as to what must be covered and uncovered, since the Sacred Scriptures, the Catechism and traditional values are sufficient to guide aright, along with some good old fashioned sanctified common sense, of course. Thus our moral sense ought to tell us, dear brother, that a mini-skirt, a bikini, or clothing that adheres tightly to the body, accentuating the anatomy, are examples of useemly attire that trespass the boundaries of propriety. If it does not, then all that I can say is that we need to do some very deep heart searching and ask if we have a radically defective conscience that has become imbued with the godless spirit of the age. Allied to this, we need to ask if we are too conformed to this world and its degrading fashions and want of standards of decency and good taste. This may well be painful, but living up to the arduous requirements of our most holy religion has never been easy and it is probably a great deal harder for the youth of today in our post-modern world. This I can understand and sympathise with as I myself have an 18 year old son, so I am well aware of the alluring nature of modern culture and its debased tastes. Nevertheless, they must be resisted and denounced by the faithful.

As regards the hair and eyes, Sacred Scripture and traditional values have never insisted that these ought to be covered (except for women in divine worship, who St. Paul said should not be bare-headedl). St. Paul only says that women should “adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9). That is to minimise and neutralize concupiscence or evil desire and ensure, as much as is possible, that women do not trespass the boundaries of propriety or become a near occasion of sin to men. In any event the pious Catholic woman will have a desire to withdraw from observation, rather than to court it. This being so, even a blind man on a galloping horse can see that a mini-skirt, bikini or tightly-fitting jeans cannot possibly be conducive towards this noble end.

All of this, my dear friend, is enough methodology for the Catholic to establish whether an article of clothing is modest or immodest, acceptable or unacceptable, as befits those who profess godliness. If you really do question the veracity or soundness of all this, then why not just put it to the test and give it a jolly good try, at least. You will see that it does work and that many contemporary Catholics have become very unspiritual and have uncritically adopted the fashions of the prevailing decadent culture in a way that previous generations would never have done.

God bless and thankyou for taking the time to respond to my questions, Baelor.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But it is what St. Paul and the Church teaches. So I cannot agree with you this point which seems to be the core of your argument.

The Church teaches accountability and responsibility for one’s actions. No amount of Bible quoting or saint quoting is going to change that.

Furthermore, personal responsibility plays a far critical role in our salvation because it takes us back all the way to the cause of original sin. The serpent wasn’t fully held responsible for the Fall, Adam and Eve were. They chose to give in.

The difference though is you can’t discern intent through appearance alone. Hence, if the serpent wasn’t held full responsibility even if he did have intent, how much less those whose intent is not made known?

Remember, the Bible teaches you not to evaluate things by their appearance too. Again, why do you people insist on glorifying that which is clearly inhumane?

JPII is also a philosophical thinker. What he does is lay the rules for what is ethical or unethical in Art. This goes beyond even the Art critic in that JPII specifically determines how and what standards an Art critic should adherer to.

Actually, it’s the complete opposite. Art critics are the arbiters of what passes and what doesn’t in the art world. Any philosopher that exercises the same authority they do does not do so as a philosopher but as an artist (and has the skills to prove it). That’s how things go. Art views are inherently over-glorified opinion donning the masks of reason and morality.

Unlike the real versions of those subjects however, there are no serious repercussions for such relativity because there are no solid grounds for any of its evaluations. It always boils down to a matter of taste and I don’t need to remind you how using taste as a moral measure is anything but wise.

 

[Baelor]

Portrait,

I am not interested in reading a post whose length is not only unreasonable great, but is due to verbosity and editorial comments about which I care not at all.

If you post a list of questions with no vocative interjections, no wall-of-text paragraphs, and no sensationalist commentary, I will be happy to respond

Do not apologize or explain your posting style either. I am not interested.

 

[thewanderer]

What you are referring to here are possibilities. No one is denying possibilities. One can use religion to incite hatred. It has happened in the past and it still does happen. But to conclude from it that we should be careful about asking people to be religious is incorrect, is it not?

So in this case, while some people while adopting traditional values can lead them to destructive behaviour, it would be incorrect to therefore conclude that doing so is bad.

The universal here is ‘not cause temptation’. You are simply caught in a cycle here. When you ask me what is the universal? I tell you its not to cause temptation. Then you ask me how do you do that? I answer that the most reasonable way to do is by following traditional values. Then you go back to asking what is the universal standard behind these values and we have a cycle.

The problem here is that you implicitly looking for a universal value that tells you what the goal is and at the same time tells you how to best achieve it. That is not how it works. You have a universal value that you want to achieve. Experience of centuries tells you how to best achieve it.

This is really not true. What you are confusing here is the fact that women are usually the ones who advance and try out different fashions. Hence, there were more guidelines for women to use that were given by tradition.

But this is just a problem unique to you. You and some others have somehow fallen in to a weird area of life where you seem unable to identify traditional values and confuse it with fashion. That is really a problem you need to resolve than any objection against traditional values.

The point here is that you are not suppossed to argue. If you noticed, I tell you to adopt traditional values. You are the one who has been arguing with me about how you should be able to pick and choose. What you are suggesting is indeed destructive. What I am suggesting does not do such a thing but give you a set of rules to follow.

Thank you OurBeloved for assuming that I am weird and unique in falling prey to this destructive cycle, or in having trouble distinguishing what you consider fashion from what you consider traditional values. I assure you I am not the only one, or that it is nearly as easy as you claim without having some sort of universal way of distinguishing the two. From Portraits reply to Baelor it seems as though he believes it is a matter of modesty that women never wear pants or skirts that show even their ankles. From what I understand you consider that to be a matter of fashion whereas he seems to consider it a matter of modesty. I have met many and heard online from many who believe women not wearing pants is a matter of modest whereas you claim that it is a matter of fashion. I assure you this is not a problem unique to me.

Please stop trying to claim I am anti-religion in any way. I am not saying that one should stop talking about modest just as I am not claiming that one should stop talking about religion, what I’m saaying is that we should deterine what is the best way to talk about it so that we don’t lead others into a selfdestructive cycle. Just as we should talk about religion in such a way that it will not incite hatred in others. It seems pretty common sense to me. The point is to help people, so we should make sure our efforts are actually going to help them.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t think the correct universal is to avoid temptation. If that were true women would have to bundle up in burkas because men might be tempted by them. There has to be a reasonable limit of what women are supposed to do to avoid causing temptation, but the universal cannot simply be, ‘avoid causing temptation’ because then there really is no end to which one should go to avoid temptation, which is exactly what leads people into this ridiculous cycle that has been brought up numerous times. Which is why I went for the universal of ‘sexy’ as opposed to ‘avoid causing temptation’. While the question of what is ‘sexy’ can still be debated, no one could deny that there is a limit to what one should do with such a universal. Even you admitted that there is a reasonable limit to which a person should go to avoid causing temptation and that they do not need to do anything beyond that.

 

[Portrait]

I think the bolded part is where we disagree. I do not see these as the only two options. We should look to the past to learn what wisdom we can from it, but we must always be careful to remove the folly from the wisdom. Therefore we do not just accept that which is old because it is old, but we carefully examine it to remove the good from the neutral and bad, so that the wisdom from other cultures can be purified and become even more worthwhile. The Church seeks the Truth. No one culture has anything completely right, which is why the church will always be countercultural, it must always point out to each culture where it falls short. So, as I have said before, while I have great respect for the past and the wisdom to be found in other cultures, I am not going to accept something unquestioningly simply because it is old. If I were to do that it is likely that I would fall into errors that that previous culture was subject to. So wee must do our best to discern the Truth, with the hellp of the Church and constant prayer. That is my position.

And yes, I agree that the much of the clothiing worn today is actually degrading to women, just as I believe many standards from the past were. Each society has its own downfalls, which is why we must carefully examine them to come to the Truth.

Dear the wanderer,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

To begin on a positive note, I am pleased that you do believe that we should consult the past and learn from it. You are quite correct, we should not embrace all that is old uncritically simply because it is old and I would never advocate such an approach. However, what is so unfortunate today is that many modern Catholics display sheer prejudice against anything that preceded the day before yesterday, as if it was all ipso facto flawed and suspect almost by default. Such a mindset is most un-Catholic and is usually adopted for polemical reasons, because certain core values of the past happen to be at variance with modern thinking and current lax moral standards. It is, in fact, the approach taken by those who have already opted for a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice and who do not wish any ‘hardline’ or rigorous traditional values from the past to make them feel guilty or uncomfortable.

The most sensible way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to listen to the moral sense of the faithful, as that is unlikely to be erroneous. Moreover, we should certainly pay attention carefully to what Popes, moral theologians and saints have said in times past, since they lived before the sexual revolution and the New Morality impacted the thinking of Catholics. Therefore their thoughts and insights upon certain issues, such as modest vesture, are to be highly prized as it is likely to be sound and fully in accord with Catholic orthodoxy. Indeed, this is why it is so indispensable to our spiritual formation as Catholics, especially given the decadent climate of our times when a moral compass is so urgently needed.

We must needs remember, dear sister, that it was to the Church, not various secular cultures, that Christ entrusted the supernatural wisdom to discern what constitues a spiritual hazard *vis-a-*vis soul destroying customs, such as unseemly and inappropriate clothing. Thus it is to the collective wisdom of the faithful to which we should turn for enlightement and direction.

So glad to hear that you think that much of the attire worn by women today is degrading, it most certainly is. How sad it is that many women today do not wish to be thought of as innocent or good, but rather desire to be seductive and ‘hot’. Alas, our society does not value innocence anymore, real or imagined, and very few would want be considered innocent Catholic girls, which is surely a monumental tragedy of the first rank. As Catholics we should be providing a robust Christian counter-culture to this warped and profane thinking, not getting caught up with it by donning its seductive style garments. That, dear sister, is out and out compromise with the godless world and this is a sad indictment upon much of contemporary Catholicism. Please God, may this trend change very soon and may modesty in dress once again become the norm in Thy Holy Church.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[johnnyjones]

**

If you’re too emotional to handle logic, that’s not my problem. Anyone who can read my statement will see the reasoning is clear. You treat and view sex with the same exaggeration and attention as the people who glorify it.

To everyone else, just look at this guy. He rants about how sex is used as some big time marketing tool and affirms the reasoning of the same people who make the stupid assumption that using sex appeal can sell. Setting aside the fact that such reasoning by itself is short-sighted, it’s quite easy to see that they really do sprout from the same trunk.

Man, and they tell me secularists use emotional reasoning.

If you’re too emotional to handle logic, that’s not my problem. Anyone who can read my statement will see the reasoning is clear. You treat and view sex with the same exaggeration and attention as the people who glorify it.

“If your too emotional…” We can all see that you’ve put no emotion into your post. LOL

“Same exaggeration” . Subconsciously realizes sex IS exaggerated.

To everyone else, just look at this guy. He rants about how sex is used as some big time marketing tool and affirms the reasoning of the same people who make the stupid assumption that using sex appeal can sell. Setting aside the fact that such reasoning by itself is short-sighted, it’s quite easy to see that they really do sprout from the same trunk

“He rants about how sex is used as some big time marketing tool…” No one would agree with that.

“…stupid assumption that using sex appeal can sell.”

Put the kiddie comic books down. And when you respond, SPIN YOUR OWN WORDS THE BEST YOU CAN.**

 

[OurBeloved]

**I’m sorry, but I really don’t think the correct universal is to avoid temptation. **If that were true women would have to bundle up in burkas because men might be tempted by them. There has to be a reasonable limit of what women are supposed to do to avoid causing temptation, but the universal cannot simply be, ‘avoid causing temptation’ because then there really is no end to which one should go to avoid temptation…

I think this is where you are going wrong.

The universal is indeed that a woman should avoid tempting others. How best to do it, is best found in traditional values and standards.

But if you start by yourself from scratch, you could indeed cross the line of “reasonable” and enter in to over-scrupulosity and finally at the Burqa.

So in short, as long as you hold to traditional values and standards developed over centuries, you really have nothing to worry about. The problem happens only once you start to come up with your own values to somehow avoid temptation.

I also didn’t say you were anti-religion. I merely pointed out that your repeated claim about how traditional values could lead to a self-destructive cycle is something unfounded just as similar claims against religion it-self is unfounded.

 

[thewanderer]

I think this is where you are going wrong.

The universal is indeed that a woman should avoid tempting others. How best to do it, is best found in traditional values and standards.

But if you start by yourself from scratch, you could indeed cross the line of “reasonable” and enter in to over-scrupulosity and finally at the Burqa.

So in short, as long as you hold to traditional values and standards developed over centuries, you really have nothing to worry about. The problem happens only once you start to come up with your own values to somehow avoid temptation.

I also didn’t say you were anti-religion. I merely pointed out that your repeated claim about how traditional values could lead to a self-destructive cycle is something unfounded just as similar claims against religion it-self is unfounded.

It sounds to me like you are saying the universal is making reasonable efforts to avoid temptation, which i am perfectly fine with. The problem now comes down to defining what a reasonable effort is.

I fail to see how it is unfounded to say that I have experienced, and seen and heard of others who have started down a slef-destructive path because of having modesty portrayed to them in an incorrect and/or incomplete way.
I also fail to see why you would have any problem with this. I am not saying don’t talk about modesty, or don’t explain that its important. I’m saying make sure you do it in a way that will not lead people into a self-destructive cycle. I don’t understand why anyone would disagree with this. Its a matter of charity.

 

[OurBeloved]

The Church teaches accountability and responsibility for one’s actions. No amount of Bible quoting or saint quoting is going to change that.

The church also teaches our responsibility to try and avoid putting others in temptation. No amount quoting teaching on personal responsibility and accountability is going to change that either.

The difference between you and me is that I want to embrace entirety of church teaching. But you want to concentrate on personal responsibility and accountability and neglect the teaching on not tempting others.

Actually, it’s the complete opposite. Art critics are the arbiters of what passes and what doesn’t in the art world. Any philosopher that exercises the same authority they do does not do so as a philosopher but as an artist (and has the skills to prove it). That’s how things go. Art views are inherently over-glorified opinion donning the masks of reason and morality

I am not sure I understand your claim here.

Art, or any subject can be philosophically analyzed. The Ethical & Moral limits of Art are not set by Art it-self but by Philosophy and Theology.

But really, are you asking me to believe your teaching on Art over the Pope’s analysis? Even more problematically, are you asking me to believe your teaching that seems to hinge on disregarding ‘not leading others to temptation to others’, and ’ not violating personal sensitivity’ over the Pope’s analysis that considers these truths? You must admit that it seems unreasonable of me to do such a thing because you already seem to flat-out deny some truths taught by the church.

Here it also seems to be the case that you have reduced Art to not some objective method of expression but something that is completely reliant on taste. On the contrary, if the portrayal does not fully capture the qualities of the subject it is portraying, including that of the ‘personal sensitivity’ of the subject in the case of a person, Bl. JP II correctly identifies this as ‘lying’. In other words, it is an immoral thing to do.

Now I do not know you personally so I do not know how qualified you are on the subject or how well your ideas on this subject have been evaluated in academia. But if you have any publications of any sort on this issue, it would be helpful if you provide links to your work so that I can read them and better understand your entire philosophical framework.

Because right now, I am just basing my thoughts on simple tid-bits that you reveal which doesn’t seem to be doing a great job at adequately fleshing out your philosophical position.

 

[OurBeloved]

It sounds to me like you are saying the universal is making reasonable efforts to avoid temptation, which i am perfectly fine with. The problem now comes down to defining what a reasonable effort is.

I fail to see how it is unfounded to say that I have experienced, and seen and heard of others who have started down a slef-destructive path because of having modesty portrayed to them in an incorrect and/or incomplete way.
I also fail to see why you would have any problem with this. I am not saying don’t talk about modesty, or don’t explain that its important. I’m saying make sure you do it in a way that will not lead people into a self-destructive cycle. I don’t understand why anyone would disagree with this. Its a matter of charity.

The only reasonable way is for you to follow traditional values and standards.

The alternatives seems to be that you follow your own ideas and either end up possibly dressing yourself immodestly, or go down a self destructive spiral filled with over-scrupulosity and end up at the Burqa.

As far as a Christian interested in salvation, there are traditional values and standards to guide them if they are interested in being modest. What you are asking me to do is tell someone something like “be religious, but be careful about being religious”. The problem as I see it in both cases, isn’t about being too religious or following traditional values but in trying to mix and match ones own thoughts with religion or traditional values to come up with ones own approach.

But you seem to insist that it is something inherent to the mere act of following traditional values.

 

[thewanderer]

Before addressing your post would just like to ask again whether or not you agree with me that the universal is making reasonable efforts to avoid temptation. You were not clear in your response as to whether or not you are happy with this.

The only reasonable way is for you to follow traditional values and standards.

The alternatives seems to be that you follow your own ideas and either end up possibly dressing yourself immodestly, or go down a self destructive spiral filled with over-scrupulosity and end up at the Burqa.

I know you are not going to like hearing this, but I cannot answer as to whether or not these are the only two ways because I am still unsure about what you mean by traditional values. Please look at my replies to Portrait if you want to see what my opinion of the process of determining what the correct way to live is. It is possible that we are in agreement, but I cannot say for sure.

As far as a Christian interested in salvation, there are traditional values and standards to guide them if they are interested in being modest. What you are asking me to do is tell someone something like “be religious, but be careful about being religious”. The problem as I see it in both cases, isn’t about being too religious or following traditional values but in trying to mix and match ones own thoughts with religion or traditional values to come up with ones own approach.

But you seem to insist that it is something inherent to the mere act of following traditional values.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I have nowhere claimed, nor did I ever intend to say that there is something inherent in following traditional values which leads people down a self-destructive path. What I did say is that if you simply tell someone to follow traditional values and leave it at that then it is easy for them to take your well-meaning advice the wrong way and end up in a self-destructive lifestyle. The main reason being that what is meant by traditional values is unclear.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The difference between you and me is that I want to embrace entirety of church teaching. But you want to concentrate on personal responsibility and accountability and neglect the teaching on not tempting others.

The problem is that you insist on using physical appearance as a measure of intent. You can’t. The Bible also says you can’t.

Nobody’s denying that we shouldn’t tempt others. However, that does not in anyway prove that we should assume people’s intent just from the things they wear.

Therefore, in conclusion, you can’t decry immodesty just because a person doesn’t dress to suit your weaknesses.

Again, following your logic, it’s my fault that I’m labeled a creep, a nerd, or a combination of both purely because I choose to dress in a certain way. Can’t you see where your logic is going?

Here it also seems to be the case that you have reduced Art to not some objective method of expression but something that is completely reliant on taste. On the contrary, if the portrayal does not fully capture the qualities of the subject it is portraying, including that of the ‘personal sensitivity’ of the subject in the case of a person, Bl. JP II correctly identifies this as ‘lying’. In other words, it is an immoral thing to do.

Following your logic, drawing a character with reptilian horns, red eyes, and bat-like wings is meant to be a picture of evil and portraying him saving a girl from the clutches of a man dressed in fine gold plate armor, studded with crusader crosses but was on the verge of assaulting her is ultimately a lie and those who portray such scenes (be it through art or literature) should be charged with sin.

Now I do not know you personally so I do not know how qualified you are on the subject or how well your ideas on this subject have been evaluated in academia. But if you have any publications of any sort on this issue, it would be helpful if you provide links to your work so that I can read them and better understand your entire philosophical framework.

It’s actually quite broad. If you haven’t identified yet, I draw most of my views from any period past post-modernist analysis. For a piece of notable literary commentary, you may try Roland Barthe’s “Death of an Author”.

 

[thewanderer]

Also, I just thought I would bring this suggestion up again to see what people think about it as I never heard any feedback about it.

** I think it is important to make sure that noone is excluded or discouraged from participating in a legitimate activity due to societal pressures with respect to dress. **

This would be one way of helping to ensure that people do not try to unreasonably force others to wear unnecessarily strict standards of dress. The extreme example is, of course, women wearing burkas. In a society that expects/demands such attire it is difficult/impossible for women to participate in sports. Sports are legitimate activities for women, therefore we can know that a burka is not necessary as a standard of attire while playing sports.

Any thoughts on this suggested universal?

 

[johnnyjones]

Also, I just thought I would bring this suggestion up again to see what people think about it as I never heard any feedback about it.

** I think it is important to make sure that noone is excluded or discouraged from participating in a legitimate activity due to societal pressures with respect to dress. **

This would be one way of helping to ensure that people do not try to unreasonably force others to wear unnecessarily strict standards of dress. The extreme example is, of course, women wearing burkas. In a society that expects/demands such attire it is difficult/impossible for women to participate in sports. Sports are legitimate activities for women, therefore we can know that a burka is not necessary as a standard of attire while playing sports.

Any thoughts on this suggested universal?

Early on in this thread I said burkas were too much but referenced womens “Islamic clothes” as on track, as an extreme example. We have gone to the other extreme with less than half dressed males and females.

How about those in favor of conservative dress having "more in common with the sexually sexual depraved " than they let on, as LOST wanderer suggests. Yet, attempts at civil dialogue continue. There’s a serious case of discouragement.

Some may advocate for a society that forces individuals to dress a certain way, I do not. The scriptures brought up modesty for a reason. Yes, a different culture, but examine what those modesty reasons were, and from that we may determine how far we have “advanced” or declined.

 

[thewanderer]

Early on in this thread I said burkas were too much but referenced womens “Islamic clothes” as on track, as an extreme example. We have gone to the other extreme with less than half dressed males and females.

How about those in favor of conservative dress having "more in common with the sexually sexual depraved " than they let on, as LOST wanderer suggests. Yet, attempts at civil dialogue continue. There’s a serious case of discouragement.

Some may advocate for a society that forces individuals to dress a certain way, I do not. The scriptures brought up modesty for a reason. Yes, a different culture, but examine what those modesty reasons were, and from that we may determine how far we have “advanced” or declined.

I’m not sure that I understand what you meant by this… can you explain a little more clearly? Are you saying we should adopt islamic dress? or merely that islamic dress would clearly be modest?

What do you mean by "How about those in favor of conservative dress having “more in common with the sexually sexual depraved " than they let on” ???

Are you saying that those in favour of conservative dress have more in common with the sexually depraved than they think? Or do you mean something else?

Your last paragraph makes it sound as though with you agree with my suggestion. Is that right? or do you think it needs to be tweaked in some way?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[thewanderer]

Portrait:

I have to make a correction to something I said earlier on. Earlier on we came to the agreement that many fashions today are degrading to women, however, on thinking more about this I have realized that that is not quite what I think. It is not the fasshions as such that degrade women but the attitude many in society have towards such fashions. It is easy to make a claim say that a bikini is degrading to women because it causes men to look upon a woman as an object then one would have to say that it is always degrading for a woman to wear a bikini. And surely no one would claim it is degrading for a woman to wear a bikini in front of her husband. So I must correct my previous statement to read:

The attitude of many in our society with respect to many of todays fashions is degrading to women.

I hope that we can agree upon this.

 

[OurBeloved]

The problem is that you insist on using physical appearance as a measure of intent. You can’t. The Bible also says you can’t.

Nobody’s denying that we shouldn’t tempt others. However, that does not in anyway prove that we should assume people’s intent just from the things they wear.

When it comes to the issue of temptation, the intent doesn’t directly have to be ‘intent to tempt’. This perhaps might be what is missing in our discussion.

We are called to become aware and act in a way that does not lead others to temptation. So a person who does not do so is not guilty on his part for leading others to temptation. Rather, they will be guilty of not being considerate of their fellow brothers and sisters to the level required by biblical standards. If the fellow brother who would have been put in temptation does end up falling and loosing salvation as a result, the careless and thoughtless act would have lead to the loss of a soul.

So to add upon this, when we see a young woman clad in immodest clothing, the problem is not that she is out to tempt, though it might well be the case. Rather, the problem is that she is leading others to temptation and she was inconsiderate of others.

Again, following your logic, it’s my fault that I’m labeled a creep, a nerd, or a combination of both purely because I choose to dress in a certain way. Can’t you see where your logic is going?

Well this is a bit confusing. Nerd, Creep etc aren’t judgements of modesty, as far as I know.

Following your logic, drawing a character with reptilian horns, red eyes, and bat-like wings is meant to be a picture of evil and portraying him saving a girl from the clutches of a man dressed in fine gold plate armor, studded with crusader crosses but was on the verge of assaulting her is ultimately a lie and those who portray such scenes (be it through art or literature) should be charged with sin.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here. If the piece of art is trying to describe Satan as the good person who rescues women from lust of men, it would indeed be a lie.

It’s actually quite broad. If you haven’t identified yet, I draw most of my views from any period past post-modernist analysis. For a piece of notable literary commentary, you may try Roland Barthe’s “Death of an Author”.

Thank you for the recommendation. I did read through some summaries of his work online since I do not have access to his book immediately. The immediate question I would have is that since Roland seems to address the issue of literature, and not specifically Art, what leads you to believe that similar framework is true of Art as well?

The reason I raise this point is that even Rolands work on literature deals with a specific class of literature. If we take a Roland’s work it-self, I do not think that it falls under this same category. For when we read Roland’s work, we assume the intent of the author is to present us a critic of ‘critiquing literature’. If Roland proceeded to give us information about a dance class he took for 2/3 rd of the text, we would consider the text to be a failure because it has failed to convey its intent.

Art seems to fall in to the same category as such a work. The artist, when he produced a piece, has intent on communicating something to the viewer. The piece of art would be great or rubbish depending on how well it communicates the artistic intent. The ethical and moral questions surrounding the piece of art would depend on the question of whether the artist’s intentions were true to the subject to begin with.

With the art being available readily for everyone to see, there are other questions that arises as Bl. JP II notes, but this is another discussion for another time.